Pixel Pusher Community

Per request a place for the Left, Right and every direction in between.
Safety Warning: Rhetoric may be served in this establishment. If you have any bureaucratic allergies please do not consume this forum.

Well I think it's each to their own. How much a person wants to involve themselves in politics is a very personal choice. Me, I love politics...its fiery and thought provoking. The only thing I object to are those people who moan and gripe about the current administrations yet never vote or refuse to engage in politics.

I can't imagine a time where I will sit passively and not engage, there is too much in politics that affect me personally for me to do that but I respect that others are just not bothered by it all.

Last edited by Daise2 on Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I avoid Politics as much as I can. I am aware that there are people who like Politics, but I am not one of them. For me, Politics has done nothing but shown me the ugliness of people in power with their narrow-minded views, refusing to compromise when compromise was a better solution and showing very little humanity,if they have any at all.

Well i think there are two things to differenciate here . One is being apolitical , meaning you dont talk about the subject ( wise decision while being around people you dont know lol) and the other is not participating in a voting.

I live in a country that is strongly political , and the media is all the time trying to force opinion on people . Elections are mandatory in here as well , and being able to vote is actually a civil value that was earned. Even people spilled their blood for it in the non distant past . So going to vote has a strong weight , even if you "vote blank" or your candidate doesnt have a chance , its still giving the value that the democracy deserves.

I personally enjoy the topic of politics. But I understand that it is not for everyone, however, while I'm alright if a person does not vote but if they don't vote then they don't get to complain about the election outcome. They are in no position to be unhappy with the choices made when they had a voice but chose to be quiet.

Sure, some like to argue that their vote alone would have changed anything, but if all the people who thought that way voted then they might have had a pretty good chance.

Politics for me, overall, has always had a negative impact on my life.

Even before I could legally vote, I had family shoving their opinions down my throat, implying that if I didn't sway to their opinion they wouldn't love or care about me.
When I finally was able to vote at 18, I had not a single clue what I was in for. Unfortunately, amonst other things, school did not teach me anything I needed to know about the process.
Sure, I learned about the government, but it was focused on what the positions were, and how a government functioned; and not the actually concept of how to process the infomation that is spewed throughout the media and what to do with all of it.
I thnk this is where most people would argue saying that it was time to form my own opinion and not to follow the crowd, but when you literally had no a single idea on any of it, it was really hard to formulate any opinions that were actual facts. You know how the media can be.
I've currently have voted in two presidental elections, and about a handful of state/city elections, all of which, to this day, I'm still cloudy upon.

When I'm around others who want to talk politics, I get really anxious, because I'm afraid to express any opinion; part in fear of judgment, part due to not really being sure if what I'm saying is even accurate.
As it is, it's usually a shitstorm of people bashing someone else, be it the person to be elected, or the person's opinion, and at the end of the day I really don't want to be apart of that bunch.

I honestly wish there was more emphasis on educating others about politics, and how it all works; as well as I wish there was a dummy guide of some sort. Part of the reason I'm cloudy during actual voting is they through these paragraphs at me that feel like they read double, triple negatives to 52 fake you out.

I also have a kind of impression that politics - the key to power which is said to corrupt - tends to attract the wrong kind of people to that career path, the ones who actually desire the power, instead of having pure intentions behind it. But then again the people who would be altruistic enough and truly fit to lead rarely have a desire to take the career path. They are more careful and smart enough to figure out how hard and constant fighting the windmill known as corruption is.

There's the irony in politics, the way I see it. How do you actually know which type of leader is which, who really has our best interest in the mind? Excuse my cynicism here, but the chosen politicians are known and proven to have a mask.

I also have a kind of impression that politics - the key to power which is said to corrupt - tends to attract the wrong kind of people to that career path, the ones who actually desire the power, instead of having pure intentions behind it. But then again the people who would be altruistic enough and truly fit to lead rarely have a desire to take the career path. They are more careful and smart enough to figure out how hard and constant fighting the windmill known as corruption is.

There's the irony in politics, the way I see it. How do you actually know which type of leader is which, who really has our best interest in the mind? Excuse my cynicism here, but the chosen politicians are known and proven to have a mask.

I personally enjoy the topic of politics. But I understand that it is not for everyone, however, while I'm alright if a person does not vote but if they don't vote then they don't get to complain about the election outcome. They are in no position to be unhappy with the choices made when they had a voice but chose to be quiet.

Quite the contrary, this is exactly wrong. If ye participate in the voting process, then you are agreeing to its outcome. Whatever results from it, ye cannae complain about it because ye played the game knowing full well the rules. Its like playing the lottery, you cannot demand your money back if ye dont win. If ye dont play, then they have no right to take your money in the first place.

If ye dont participate, then ye have every right to complain about it (even moreso than those who do vote), because ye have no hand in it. If ye dont agree to a contract, youre under no obligation to it.

I personally enjoy the topic of politics. But I understand that it is not for everyone, however, while I'm alright if a person does not vote but if they don't vote then they don't get to complain about the election outcome. They are in no position to be unhappy with the choices made when they had a voice but chose to be quiet.

Quite the contrary, this is exactly wrong. If ye participate in the voting process, then you are agreeing to its outcome. Whatever results from it, ye cannae complain about it because ye played the game knowing full well the rules. Its like playing the lottery, you cannot demand your money back if ye dont win. If ye dont play, then they have no right to take your money in the first place.

If ye dont participate, then ye have every right to complain about it (even moreso than those who do vote), because ye have no hand in it. If ye dont agree to a contract, youre under no obligation to it.

I'm not sure I agree with this Lass. Irrespective of whether you vote or not, we all by default agree to the outcome of any vote.

Playing the lottery is similar in that you know you have a set of known numbers, which are randomly pulled out. You also vote, knowing who your choices are. But unlike the lottery, the voting process has a winner based on how many people voted for that person. No one dips a hand in a tub and pulls out a piece of paper with a candidates name on it (though I can see the appeal of that idea).
I agree, when you take part in the voting process you understand and agree to the process of how a winner is decided. Its a simple case of the majority rules. You can vote...have you candidate win and cheer and celebrate just as you can vote and be in the losing team. You can complain at what you consider people's stupidity for voting for the wrong guy, you can even complain about the system of proportional representation etc.....but if you elect not to vote, for whatever reason, you are choosing to remove your voice from the decision making process. And if you do that, sure you can still complain, but it shouldn't be a surprise when people like myself point out that if you wanted someone else to win you should have voted. If you object to all candidates, you should still turn up and spoil your voting slip. At least you have then made a statement that no candidate respresents your views.

I personally enjoy the topic of politics. But I understand that it is not for everyone, however, while I'm alright if a person does not vote but if they don't vote then they don't get to complain about the election outcome. They are in no position to be unhappy with the choices made when they had a voice but chose to be quiet.

Quite the contrary, this is exactly wrong. If ye participate in the voting process, then you are agreeing to its outcome. Whatever results from it, ye cannae complain about it because ye played the game knowing full well the rules. Its like playing the lottery, you cannot demand your money back if ye dont win. If ye dont play, then they have no right to take your money in the first place.

If ye dont participate, then ye have every right to complain about it (even moreso than those who do vote), because ye have no hand in it. If ye dont agree to a contract, youre under no obligation to it.

I'm sorry but the lottery and the voting really aren't comparable in this situation because you're right, if you do not participate in lottery then you're completely out of the system, you did not pay and had no chance of winning, but the result of your voting will affect your life whether you vote or not. Choosing not to vote is still choosing a stance in that system. There is no staying out of it because regardless of you like it or not, you'll be affected by the outcome.

And how am I agreeing with the outcome if the person I voted for didn't win? If they did win then yes, I agree with the outcome, if they did not win then I actually clearly expressed my disagreement of the outcome because I fought against it unlike the person who did not show up to the voting process. I am the only person who can complain because hey, I tried to stop this, I voted against this person instead of voting for them or standing by and doing nothing to stop it. Even if I like none of the candidates, one of them is going to have power over my life so I should at least try to minimize the damage. Casting a vote is a much easier way to try to do so than trying to protest it later.

I'm not sure I agree with this Lass. Irrespective of whether you vote or not, we all by default agree to the outcome of any vote.

Playing the lottery is similar in that you know you have a set of known numbers, which are randomly pulled out. You also vote, knowing who your choices are. But unlike the lottery, the voting process has a winner based on how many people voted for that person. No one dips a hand in a tub and pulls out a piece of paper with a candidates name on it (though I can see the appeal of that idea).

Whether it is by random selection or by careful deliberation is irrelevant. The salient point is that by participating in the process one agrees to its outcome how ever it may be derived.

I agree, when you take part in the voting process you understand and agree to the process of how a winner is decided. Its a simple case of the majority rules. You can vote...have you candidate win and cheer and celebrate just as you can vote and be in the losing team. You can complain at what you consider people's stupidity for voting for the wrong guy, you can even complain about the system of proportional representation etc.....but if you elect not to vote, for whatever reason, you are choosing to remove your voice from the decision making process.

Of course, anyone can complain about anything, but simply by complaining does not give them a right to it. If one agrees to participate in it from the outset, such complaints have no leg to stand on.

The system is invented, it is not inherent. We are inherently born free. Only by agreeing to abdicate that inherent freedom to some claiming some authority over the lives and freedom of all others is it even necessary to give voice within the process of the system using it.

And if you do that, sure you can still complain, but it shouldn't be a surprise when people like myself point out that if you wanted someone else to win you should have voted. If you object to all candidates, you should still turn up and spoil your voting slip. At least you have then made a statement that no candidate respresents your views.

If Bob and Sally vote that chocolate should be the only flavour available for ice cream and Frank votes that vanilla should be the only flavour available for ice cream, anyone who did not vote has a legal, moral and inherent right to complain when chocolate ice cream is forced upon everyone simply because three individuals, who have nothing to do with you, voted upon it.

I agree, when you take part in the voting process you understand and agree to the process of how a winner is decided. Its a simple case of the majority rules. You can vote...have you candidate win and cheer and celebrate just as you can vote and be in the losing team. You can complain at what you consider people's stupidity for voting for the wrong guy, you can even complain about the system of proportional representation etc.....but if you elect not to vote, for whatever reason, you are choosing to remove your voice from the decision making process.

The system is invented, it is not inherent. We are inherently born free. Only by agreeing to abdicate that inherent freedom to some claiming some authority over the lives and freedom of all others is it even necessary to give voice within the process of the system using it.

I agree but sorry, I fail to see how a world population such as ours can possible continue to exist without rules, systems and laws. That means people have to have leaders who will make policies, decisions and make choices 'for the greater good'. That's the rub. Decisions/mandates/laws/bills etc etc can only be made using educated and thought-out processes which will not get the approval of everyone. Hence the majority rules.

And if you do that, sure you can still complain, but it shouldn't be a surprise when people like myself point out that if you wanted someone else to win you should have voted. If you object to all candidates, you should still turn up and spoil your voting slip. At least you have then made a statement that no candidate respresents your views.

If Bob and Sally vote that chocolate should be the only flavour available for ice cream and Frank votes that vanilla should be the only flavour available for ice cream, anyone who did not vote has a legal, moral and inherent right to complain when chocolate ice cream is forced upon everyone simply because three individuals, who have nothing to do with you, voted upon it.

Your scenario should read 'Bob stands as the candidate to make chocolate the only available ice cream. Franks stands as the candidate for vanilla'.

If no other people stand to represent watermelon, lemon, raspberry and choc choc chip....then we may all chose to go and vote for either Bob or Frank, or we can create our own political party and put forward our own flavour. We can choose to try and be part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem. If I don't really like Chocolate or vanilla, I can go and spoil my ballot paper as a protest or scribble 'I want ALL flavours!!' on it....or I can make that decision that I slightly prefer vanilla to the chocolate and choose to vote for Frank. Of course I can vote for the winning candidate and decide his idea of vanilla icecream is not as good as I had expected and wish I hadn't voted for him. That's tough luck on me. Next time, I wont vote Vanilla

Its that old adage. You can please all of the people some of the time, or you can please some of the people all of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Your scenario should read 'Bob stands as the candidate to make chocolate the only available ice cream. Franks stands as the candidate for vanilla'.

If no other people stand to represent watermelon, lemon, raspberry and choc choc chip....then we may all chose to go and vote for either Bob or Frank, or we can create our own political party and put forward our own flavour. We can choose to try and be part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem. If I don't really like Chocolate or vanilla, I can go and spoil my ballot paper as a protest or scribble 'I want ALL flavours!!' on it....or I can make that decision that I slightly prefer vanilla to the chocolate and choose to vote for Frank. Of course I can vote for the winning candidate and decide his idea of vanilla icecream is not as good as I had expected and wish I hadn't voted for him. That's tough luck on me. Next time, I wont vote Vanilla

Its that old adage. You can please all of the people some of the time, or you can please some of the people all of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Youre still missing he point entirely.

People, candidates, representatives, Grand Poobahs... the scenario does not change. If three representatives want to decree chocolate as the only flavour available for everyone and one representative wants only vanilla for everyone, it effects those who participate in the voting. i shall continue enjoying my coffee ice cream, even if it makes me a criminal in the eyes of everyone bound by their agreements to forfeit their own freedoms by agreeing with it.

There is no inherent legitimacy for one group of people to dictate to all others simply because Bob and Sallys representatives won against Franks representatives in a contest which only they participated.

And how am I agreeing with the outcome if the person I voted for didn't win? If they did win then yes, I agree with the outcome, if they did not win then I actually clearly expressed my disagreement of the outcome because I fought against it unlike the person who did not show up to the voting process. I am the only person who can complain because hey, I tried to stop this, I voted against this person instead of voting for them or standing by and doing nothing to stop it. Even if I like none of the candidates, one of them is going to have power over my life so I should at least try to minimize the damage. Casting a vote is a much easier way to try to do so than trying to protest it later.

Win or lose, you are agreeing to the outcome of the contest itself, lest you would ignore the contest altogether and simply conduct your life as you see fit. You are agreeing that the winner (whoever it may be) shall dictate and micromanage everyone elses lives including your own. Thats what the contest is all about.

And how am I agreeing with the outcome if the person I voted for didn't win? If they did win then yes, I agree with the outcome, if they did not win then I actually clearly expressed my disagreement of the outcome because I fought against it unlike the person who did not show up to the voting process. I am the only person who can complain because hey, I tried to stop this, I voted against this person instead of voting for them or standing by and doing nothing to stop it. Even if I like none of the candidates, one of them is going to have power over my life so I should at least try to minimize the damage. Casting a vote is a much easier way to try to do so than trying to protest it later.

Win or lose, you are agreeing to the outcome of the contest itself, lest you would ignore the contest altogether and simply conduct your life as you see fit. You are agreeing that the winner (whoever it may be) shall dictate and micromanage everyone elses lives including your own. Thats what the contest is all about.

You are correct, I do agree with democracy, it is not perfect but it is better than dictatorship or anarchy. And even if I did not agree with it, that is just how it is. It is going to happen either way and it will be a part of my life, so unless I want to organize a coup, the next best thing that I can do is to try to minimize the damage. At least I am doing something instead of watching a system that I may not like but that does affect me in action without any effort to make it better. It is also my personal view that if there is a problem that you can at least try to have some effect on, but refuse to, then you should not complain about it.

Your scenario should read 'Bob stands as the candidate to make chocolate the only available ice cream. Franks stands as the candidate for vanilla'.

If no other people stand to represent watermelon, lemon, raspberry and choc choc chip....then we may all chose to go and vote for either Bob or Frank, or we can create our own political party and put forward our own flavour. We can choose to try and be part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem. If I don't really like Chocolate or vanilla, I can go and spoil my ballot paper as a protest or scribble 'I want ALL flavours!!' on it....or I can make that decision that I slightly prefer vanilla to the chocolate and choose to vote for Frank. Of course I can vote for the winning candidate and decide his idea of vanilla icecream is not as good as I had expected and wish I hadn't voted for him. That's tough luck on me. Next time, I wont vote Vanilla

Its that old adage. You can please all of the people some of the time, or you can please some of the people all of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Youre still missing he point entirely.

People, candidates, representatives, Grand Poobahs... the scenario does not change. If three representatives want to decree chocolate as the only flavour available for everyone and one representative wants only vanilla for everyone, it effects those who participate in the voting. i shall continue enjoying my coffee ice cream, even if it makes me a criminal in the eyes of everyone bound by their agreements to forfeit their own freedoms by agreeing with it.

There is no inherent legitimacy for one group of people to dictate to all others simply because Bob and Sallys representatives won against Franks representatives in a contest which only they participated.

And my response would be that you should take your coffee icecream and stand alongside the chocolate and vanilla candidates and give the people a third choice. And I would take my lemon flavour and give a fourth choice and so on. Its not about dictating, its about people putting forward a mandate what they believe is the best system to live and work by. We have the choice to take part and vote according to which candidate's mandate we agree with the most, or we can chose to abstain from voting. The difference is that the person who votes, when his candidate loses, that person can say they cast their vote and got involved. The person who didn't bother to turn up to vote can also complain at who was elected, but they neither tried to change the outcome by voting or stood up as another candidate themselves.

I don't like Trump at all. However I will say this for the man - he didn't like the political choices open to him, so instead of just bitching about it, he stood up and gave the American people another candidate to choose from.

And my response would be that you should take your coffee icecream and stand alongside the chocolate and vanilla candidates and give the people a third choice. And I would take my lemon flavour and give a fourth choice and so on.

They already have the choice without the need for anothers approval... its called self-rule.

Its not about dictating, its about people putting forward a mandate what they believe is the best system to live and work by.

It is exactly about dictating.

When people hear the word 'democracy', often they immediately think of 'freedom' and 'liberty'. But democracy has nothing to do with freedom or liberty.

Its very foundation is not based on freedom at all but rather the rulership of mob group-think. Democracy does not promote individualism or diversity but seeks to abolish them. It is simply using the mechanisms of a 'government' to force a collective management of other peoples lives and individual choices.

Democracy is a process, not a goal. Democracy is not freedom. Majority rule supersedes whatever meaning any individual’s choice might have. The individual gets overruled, by definition…the wants of other people are clearly still forced upon all other individuals as an intrinsic part of the democratic process.

Its not about individual freedom; its about whats popular among those simply calling themselves 'individuals' and forcing it upon all other individuals. If a majority of people think that war and destruction is a good idea, the rest that suggest more peaceful means is simply trampled. How is democracy anything resembling freedom?

No one votes to punish their own behaviour; they vote to punish the behaviours of others. No one votes to force themselves to pay for programs that they like; they vote to force other people to pay for the programs that they like. Democracy is just a process which may or may not result in freedom (if the collective so deems it 'worthy').

We have the choice to take part and vote according to which candidate's mandate we agree with the most, or we can chose to abstain from voting. The difference is that the person who votes, when his candidate loses, that person can say they cast their vote and got involved. The person who didn't bother to turn up to vote can also complain at who was elected, but they neither tried to change the outcome by voting or stood up as another candidate themselves.

You could have the strongest, most robust plant in the world, but it shall not survive in Antarctica. The environment shall simply not support it. Special interests, partisanship, agendas, “buying” politicians... all become the natural course of "government", thus, they represent not the people, but rather, the interests that put them in office. Do ye really think a corporation, whose sole existence is for that “bottom-line” profit, has the peoples interests at heart?

There are two basic ways that people interact with each other: by mutual agreement... or by forcible coercion using threats or violence to force their will and control upon another.

The first can be distinguished as "consent"... both sides willingly and voluntarily agree to what is to be done.
The second can be distinguished as "governing"... one person controlling another.

Since consent and governing are opposites, the concept of "consent of the governed" is a pointedly foolish contradiction. If there is mutual consent, there is no governing. If there is governing, there is no consent.

It is claimed that a majority or "the people as a whole" have given their consent to be ruled even if many individuals have not. No one (individually or as a group) can give consent for something to be done to someone else. Thats simply not what "consent" means. It defies logic to say, "I give my consent for you to be robbed."

Yet, that is the very basis of "government"... the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority. That is not "consent of the governed"... it is forcible control of the governed with the approval of a third party.

Even if someone were wacky enough to actually tell someone else, "I agree to let you forcibly control me"... the very moment the controller finds it necessary to force the "controllee" to do something, it is obviously no longer "consent". Prior to that moment, there is no "governing"... only voluntary cooperation. The very notion of "consent of the governed" is schizophrenic... it states, "I agree to let you force things upon me whether I agree to them or not."

I don't like Trump at all. However I will say this for the man - he didn't like the political choices open to him, so instead of just bitching about it, he stood up and gave the American people another candidate to choose from.

I've been following this thread for sometime and was debating whether to contribute or not, but I have decided to share my thoughts, possibly from quite a young point of view?

I have found being active in politics (namely American politics) as a younger individual has good aspects and bad aspects to it. Which I'm guessing is for everyone, regardless of age.

Being active in Politics for myself personally has resulted in myself earning the respect of my elders and being seen as more aware of the world around me. It has also resulted in myself maturing more quickly, but most importantly, it made myself more confident in talking to adults.

Being active in Politics has also caused obstacles and cracks in some relationships. An example of an obstacle is being told that I can't have an opinion in the means of politics until I "grow up," and in general being dismissed for being younger. It's also made me more cynical and more of a recluse then I was before.

I think being active in politics has its ups and downs, and will probably be like that no matter the age.

Being active in Politics has also caused obstacles and cracks in some relationships.

Although is a relationship that would break up over politics really a relationship worth having? I can understand that you can't get some family members out of your life but if a friend attacks you for your political views then what kind of a friend are they really? I don't always agree with the views of some of my friends and family members either but it has never caused any cracks in those relationships.

I prefer not to talk about politics, I do follow politics but talking about it with the wrong people gets you into a debate that you really didn't want to get into. I Keep it quiet and simple when it comes time for voting, I often get asked who did you vote for and I just sway the subject. Honestly there is never the Right choice only the best choice with the information you have. I watch as their lives are splattered all over the media , he did this, she did that and it makes me wonder what's being done to actually make the world a better place.. so yeah I don't speak politics.

Being active in Politics has also caused obstacles and cracks in some relationships.

Although is a relationship that would break up over politics really a relationship worth having? I can understand that you can't get some family members out of your life but if a friend attacks you for your political views then what kind of a friend are they really? I don't always agree with the views of some of my friends and family members either but it has never caused any cracks in those relationships.

Oh I guess I should have been more clear, oops! I don't usually discuss politics with friends, it's just with family members. It's just it can cause some issues especially between different family members (especially of different generations). I would go in depth and explain more, but I'd rather not. Sorry for the vagueness

I been thinking about this for a while. I made a Deplorable shirt (yes, I'm a Trump supporter) and I wanted to publish it but never got around to it. Especially trying to become pro (almost tier 4), I don't want to tarnish my name in any kind of way. It's difficult to choose.